Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 28, 2012 3:30am-4:00am PDT

3:30 am
can critique it before it comes final. it is kind of an ongoing and fluid process. commissioner borden: it will also circulate that same kind of document. >> you will be including these in the motion that the advisor regroups on the long-term campuses, california, pacific, it will be proposed in the future project at those are in the development agreement. they'll leave the projects that are getting entitled now, we are using the conditions of approval.
3:31 am
they will now be required -- using the conditions of approval. >> in terms of the same document, to make that available in the way that the public makes sense. commissioner borden: also on transportation, if we're going to make a motion, there should be really strong language of around the transportation authority to really look at how they manage priority projects moving forward. if there is any way to look at the bus lane that is being
3:32 am
moved and maybe the parking lane on the other side, i don't know, but some sort of way to create prioritization for transit at the same time that you are doing -- >> i think since you are approving the project, the best you can probably do is to do exactly what you said and have the motion in included the urging to the city agencies to do what you had said -- commissioner borden: it sounded like they hadn't really thought through that. and the fact that is going to be that way for three or four years.
3:33 am
>> i feel fairly confident that a lot of the detailed planning for that is coming, and they are aware of the issue had multiple solutions. >> i know that we're hearing about it on the tenth, but as the plans unfold, it will be helpful. it sounded like two or three years, though. you are correct, it would be a length of time. it is a long time.
3:34 am
commissioner borden: those were my major questions. commissioner miguel: i appreciated the information we received today regarding transportation. the last time we got a shrug of the shoulders. anything we got today was better. the parking lane, they got a major discrepancy there. although there is nothing we can do about it immediately. it does pose a difficult problem, particularly the fact that there is going to have to be more work that is presently estimated regarding -- let
3:35 am
alone, i think it will be longer to work on that. that is all i have to say, i am glad we did not just get a struggle of the shoulders today. commissioner moore: i have a question for you. medical institutions require one parking space, alternative for these were feet of space occupied by sleeping rooms. my understanding on the campus, it exceeds that by far. it was recommended in light of
3:36 am
the fact that we are in the middle of adding -- we have the entire city network of bus routes, that led the department to recommend that. >> in the high level project, code compliance in terms of parking at the cathedral campus , there are various methodologies for calculating, as you mentioned. it landed on the the zoning administrator. the use of the occupied area, since there are some sort of unique additional requirements like wider corridors and things of that nature, these and in the administrator and i worked closely on that area of the project. one thing to point out is the medical office building, it is
3:37 am
within the planning co the within a hundred feet of a given property provide the off side parking garage. they are to satisfy the additional parking requirements triggered by the conversion of 1375 from office. commissioner moore: wider corridors don't calculate into that calculation. they would be patient rooms, so the corridor issue doesn't quite matter. it is between you and designing a administrator quite a bit. >> if i may jump then, there is
3:38 am
no maximum in dakota. -- in the code. no minimum requirement. >> part of the decision on this is the drastic difference based on the square footage of sleeping room. that was part of his decision in interpreting the cut. commissioner moore: the next question is perhaps addressed to mr. king. i heard in this presentation that he was widening the size and because of the need to be operating partially under the sidewalk under the correct interpretation. >> the sidewalks are supposed to be widened on post, not on gary.
3:39 am
commissioner moore: a hospital goes underneath the sidewalk? got there are facilities that go underneath the sidewalk. commissioner moore: the only thing i like to remind, normally the city was trying to move away from the side wall. we had a case on bush street where people talked about eliminating early 1900 freight elevators where there was a big discussion that this should not be in a building for these facilities underneath the public right of way. not many people walking, the
3:40 am
majority walk on either frankland oin or venice. >> can i clarify on the building? the existing building goes on to lament to existing parking garages underground. in the future building will be limited to the property lines not including the sidewalks with the exception of the tunnel that crosses vaness, and gary street that will be like pipes. it will not extend beyond the property line. the wyden sidewalk itself is widened on post street. why take the parking lane and the bus line? you need to demolish the entire
3:41 am
side walk and you are automatically and the driving. >> my last question is the tunnel. for the exclusive views of people in the medical building in the hospital and vice versa. at every point, if it is difficult to cross the street in one cycle. i've basically get there when the number is already at zero. they are biased and i think they will stay that way. >> it would not be convenient.
3:42 am
the two levels below grade with a below grade level at the hospital at both of those buildings. the publican entered both of those buildings, it would not be your first choice across venice avenue. commissioner moore: thank you. commissioner sugaya: i think i know the answer to this, but i will ask anyway. at today's paper, there was an article on a 400 ft high rise that is being proposed. the article seemed to imply that the environmental review ha was already under way. i don't know if it is in the department or not. is there any kind of ceqa something that says there can be
3:43 am
any kind of the way the cumulative impacts are, is there any kind of retroactive mitigation that can come about? or if the highrises going to make the traffic even worse that it is, is that right? >> someone from environmental planning will answer that. it comes as a community planning exemption. >commissioner sugaya: they will have to take into consideration, and i assume.
3:44 am
>> being trapped here -- i guess the important thing in terms of this is a reminder that we all look at a list of projects, we look at a growth that was assumed cumulative for this project, it is part of that growth. it is not a particular building or a particular site, so did we account for this in the cumulative sense? because the project we're talking about is something that is anticipated.
3:45 am
and the overall matrix of the cumulative impact. >> on to the item of work force, any comments or questions? commissioner antonini: and we combine that with housing since it is sort of related to? questions and comments, we were asked about the special use district, and i guess this is a question or comment for director lee. you know, we are allowed by conditional use, as an institution, it is not obliged
3:46 am
to provide a three times the housing to commercial. but i think everyone pretty much felt that there should be some contribution to the housing particularly because of the impact. what we came up with his $62 million plan here which is significant, provides more housing ultimately that would be the case of using this very clever and very useful addressing middle income housing. the first time, i can remember where we targeted the group that we are having the middle income housing, i know the plan exists on downpayment assistance. it addresses their impact that probably will be significant. we're talking about 6200 existing jobs turning over at the rate of 400-600 a year,
3:47 am
projecting 1500 new ones over 10 or 15 years. 15% of the workers live in san francisco now. the reason to believe it will be higher percentage, it may make it possible for someone to live closer to where they work and be able to buy their first home. it is really very well done, and i am happy with the way it was put together. i don't have a specific question, it is mostly comments. commissioner borden: i know you're working around the jobs because i think it was told that they were talking about the difference between the number of jobs a year vs. a percentage, and i guess that you mentioned that it might be looking at
3:48 am
that. i think if we could put a percentage of overall jobs, if you could see if we are achieving that growth. if 40 is 20% or whenever it was -- >> our recommendation remains to leave it as a number. it is possible that we do better that way. we do not know how many jobs are going to be generated. staff recommendation is to leave it as a number. it is a crapshoot. we might have been better off with a percentage or we might have been better off with a number. at this point camara our recommendation is to leave that as a number. commissioner borden: it was brought up by a member of the public that there is no -- the hiring, the service manager project has to be local
3:49 am
contractors. that does not apply to this project. >> are you referring to the construction jobs? >> my understanding is that he was called away by a family emergency. i will try to do my best. cpmc is not subject to the ordinance because it is a privately funded project. the agreement in the d.a. a sense, as closely as possible, to mirror what the requirement would be if they were subject to it. generally, that is 30% of all hiring and 50% of subsets and some other ones. it mirrors what they would do. we did not talk about it today because not a lot of questions came up about it. but there is a very strong local hire component. what --
3:50 am
commissioner borden: i know we were focusing on the lower end of the socio-economic platform for jobs. was there any other discussion about opening up to a broader set of new jobs in general? >> it would be very similar from earlier, that everyone had discussed this, felt that the most appropriate place to do this, particularly because this was the hospital, with maybe more than others -- other types of businesses, highly skilled jobs above entry level that most reasonable people would not want to see doctors and nurses have the same requirements as entry- level jobs. the appropriateness to go with was entry-level jobs. that is where a lot of the -- there are a lot of jobs at cpmc. 1500 new jobs. we are talking about entry-level jobs. the appropriate conversation is to compare jobs 3 work 4 system
3:51 am
with the number of entry-level jobs, not the number of total jobs. >> even if the overall number of jobs, for some reason, i am not saying they're going to decrease, but even if the overall number of jobs decreased, any new entry-level jobs would still be -- >> that is the advantage of using the percentage. even if they did not produce as many new jobs, they would still be on the hook for 40 jobs per year. commissioner sugaya: the development agreement has a lot of new stuff in it that we have not seen before. i am wondering if you could address the issue of including the health service system in the parameters around which cpmc are supposed to adhere to certain kinds of rates and that kind of thing.
3:52 am
why is it not possible to address the nurses union, stationary engineers, as having transfer privileges? >> that might be a better question for the city attorney. our understanding with some significant legal advice is that labor relations issues are not allowed for us as a local decision maker to address. there is a difference between health service. there is nothing for including us -- precluding us from addressing health issues, but there is for legal issues. commissioner miguel: just to follow up -- i am sorry. >> are we going into housing next? commissioner miguel: i will follow up on the work force. san francisco has always been
3:53 am
known as a union town, more less, depending on what decade we're talking about. i abhor the concept of long, multi your drawn-out labor disputes. we have had them in many areas of the city. we may have had it before with stationary engineers. we certainly had it with zero co-workers -- with hotel " -- with hotel workers. it does not help the population. it does not help the businesses. it hurts them a great deal. but it always has been my understanding that those are private contractual agreements between employer and union. unless it is the city who is the employer, there is nothing we can do about it. at least that is the advice i have always received on it.
3:54 am
unfortunately, and i have to mention it because i consider it unfortunate, i am not able to do anything about it. there was a comment, and i did not want it to pass without additional words on it. i believe it was a woman from the electrical trade. one of the things in the training of apprentices as they go in, that this type of project will bring to apprentices and incoming workers, particularly in some of the trades, the plumbers, electricians are the two i can think of. this is such an intricate building to do a major overhaul. i c r one health care advocate
3:55 am
here to my right. nodding in agreement. there are things that will have to be done within this building , right up to not only current codes but current practices, that a normal office or residential building would not even think of. that type of training is something we normally would not get for the beginning trades and apprentices. to me, that is of value also. commissioner moore: i just put my name of for the next topic. commissioner antonini: while we are on -- while we are on housing -- i thought we were on housing. president fong: we are now officially on housing. commissioner moore: after all
3:56 am
the explanations and a really good discussion on the topic, i am concerned about the request for modification for the non- residential ratio for the campus. i have read this explanation but i would like to see a larger percentage of this money being used for the way the city bound policy is using it rather than creating a distinction for people who would qualify for this. speaking about the program and the possibility that it would be administered in two different forms by moh and while i know it would be in good hands, the
3:57 am
problem is still people of the same need. i do not want to start distinguishing about the level of need or level of deserving nest. -- deservingness. that was just a comment. commissioner antonini: on that subject, i think this is truly a prototype that could be used for future agreements because it does specifically address a nexus. these are going to be employees that will be working there. presumably, we would like as many as possible to live as close to their work site as possible and become homeowners in san francisco. i think it targets a specific thing and i think it is a very -- as i mentioned earlier, the first time i have ever seen this middle income ownership addressed in a development agreement.
3:58 am
perhaps there have been some others. but i think this is the first one. the other thing i should point out in terms of this, of course, the van ness special use district 3 we could have exempted the project from any housing contributions. however, it was felt by -- as part of the development agreement was included, it is not directly a requirement by c.u., but it is part of the development agreement, which we are going to approve. as should be the case, because it is an institution. the reason that was in there is because most of the development on van ness was commercial. they wanted to encourage housing above commercial. that is why that was in there. institutions were exempt. the other thing, i marked the difference between stanford
3:59 am
lucille packard with more than 1 million square feet of development and cpmc with more than 1 million. there is a lot more being done here. trying to squabble over the small amount of difference based on the van ness, my compliments to the city for doing this. if there is anything else to add, i am happy to listen to any corrections on my analysis. >> i think you have described the concept. thank you. president fong: if you do not mind, i would like to jump in for a second related to housing. i think the 220 units is significant. it may not be enough, but it is still new housing that we're putting into the city. m


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on